Friday, 30 September 2016

The Brit Snitch

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, mysteries
of the Maddie case is related to something we in the blog don’t
subscribe to at all: that Maddie’s death was related to paedophilia.

One of the reasons we don’t subscribe to that theory is exactly because of this mystery, as we hope to explain today.

The
fact that we don’t subscribe to the paedophilia thesis doesn’t mean
we haven’t paid it attention, because we have and a whole lot of it.

We
only wish others would give as much attention to swinging as we have
done with paedophilia but then when one is only looking for validation
one will always find it impossible to see reason.

We have
analysed carefully all information that is available to support the
paedo theory and we have come to the conclusion – which we respect that
others won’t agree with – that it is planted one.

A jigsaw is
made up only by the pieces that come in the box. Not a single piece
less, not a single piece more. To solve it one has to use ALL the pieces
in the box and cannot set some aside.

And one doesn’t solve anything if one uses pieces that did not come in the box but were cut and shaped so they could fit.

We
realise and acknowledge the paedo pieces of the puzzle do exist, so we
must and do use them. We do that by understanding why they are there
for all to see.

As far as we can see, there are 3 paedo pieces in the Maddie case puzzle:

- Yvonne Martin statements;

- Gaspar statements;

- CATS file;

The big mystery we will be talking about today has to do with the Gaspar statements, as we hope we will be able to show.

Unlike
we usually do, in this post we will pose the mystery question right up
front: when exactly did paedophilia become a lead of interest to the PJ
investigation?

2. The chronological order of numbers

If
the reader responds that paedophilia became a lead when Yvonne Martin
alleges to have written an anonymous letter to the British police (which
we have never seen or has ever been acknowledged by anyone), the answer
is incorrect.

If the answer was on June 12, 2007 when Yvonne
Martin speaks to the PJ at her home after having convened them there
that is also incorrect.

It wasn’t Yvonne Martin who first
attracted the PJ’s attention onto the paedophile lead but she does help
us find out who it was.

She does that through her statements. Not
about their content – we will speak about that later – but because of
the pages of paper they were printed on.

As we said then, this provides a chronological order in which the various documents are appended to a process.

This
handwritten numbering – which no OCR (Optical Character Recognition)
software can replicate – ensures to anyone reading the process that no
page has been inserted afterwards in the middle of it over time. And
also that none have been taken out of it.

For example, and
already getting to the crux of this post, the Gaspar statements are
given on May 16, 2007 but are only appended to the process in October.

Same happens with Yvonne Martin. She speaks on June 12 and 13 but her statements are only appended to the process in November.

This hiatus of time is easily explained and that’s what we’re hoping we are going to do in this post.

It’s
the fact that the Martin statements are appended after the Gaspar ones
that tells us that it wasn’t because of Yvonne that the PJ became interested
in paedophilia as a lead.

Both, the Martin and the Gaspar set
of statements can be found in Volume XIII of the PJ Files.

It just happens
that in that Volume XIII there is a numbering problem, and coincidence
would have it that it happened after the Gaspar statements and before the
Martin ones were appended.

What happened was that instead of 4000 following 3999, whoever was numbering followed it with 3400.

This
mistake was only detected 428 pages later, when in Volume XIV page 3827
(which should have been page 4427 if there had been no error) this is
acknowledged: “after page 3999 in volume XIII page numbers continued at
number 3400 in error, instead of number 4000”

Instead of crossing
out the erroneous numbers and putting in new ones, it was decided to
continue the sequencing as it was, maintaining intact the integrity of
the chronological order of the documents.

With the explanation,
anyone reading Volume XII, knows that at 3999, the numbering was reset
to 3400 and continued from there. The numerical sequence never stopped
being respected.

All documents related to Yvonne Martins are in Volume XIII, pages 3421 to 3433:

Immediately preceding these documents, it was appended to the files the statement by Susan Hubbard on Nov 13 (pgs 3418 to 3420).

This
means that the Martin documents, including her statements of June 12
(3422 to 3424) and June 13 (3425 to 3428) were only appended to files on
or after Nov 14, 2007 (3431 to 3433), the date of her final statement.

Please note both statements from Hubbard and from Martin are over 3400, so under the “new” numbering.

If there had been no numbering glitch they would have been 4018 to 4020 for Hubbard and 4031 to 4033 for Martin.

Why this is important?

Because
the Gaspar statements, pages 3909 to 3920 (please remember these
numbers are below 3999, when the numbering error began, so precede the
3422 to 3424 of Hubbard’s statements) were appended before the Martin
ones.

And before the Gaspar documents there is no suggestion
whatsoever in the files about paedophilia, directly or indirectly. The
Gaspar documents are the first statements referring it in any way, shape
or form that are appended to the process.

3. Martin and the Unpublished PJ Files

Yvonne Martin is a great help for us the truth-seekers for 2 reasons.

First,
when she helps explain how paedophilia is just a contemptible hoax,
when part of it, overeggs her role as social worker and concerned
citizen but fails in her mission by never really pointing the paedo
finger in Payne’s direction, as we will see.

And the other reason
she’s a help is because, and that is what matters today, she helps to
clarify and debunk that urban myth of the infamous unpublished PJ Files.

In the post “The Saint of Salem I” we said that Yvonne Martin interacted with the authorities 9 times:

#1
– When she arrived in Luz and says she approaches a GNR officer to ask
directions and is escorted by that GNR officer to near apartment 5A (her
initiative approaching officer);

#2 – When two weeks later she writes an anonymous letter to the British police, finger-pointing Payne (her initiative);

#3 – When she calls the PJ saying that she wants to speak to them (her initiative);

#4 – When she speaks to PJ at her residence – 1st statement (her initiative);

#5 – When she speaks to PJ at PJ – 2nd statement;

#6 – When PJ “archives” both of her statements (she's unaware of this);

#7 – When PJ “unarchives” her statements (she's unaware of this);

#8 – When she’s notified to come to PJ to give a statement;

#9 – When she’s heard for the 3rd statement.

In
that same post we said we were skipping over ‘#1 – In Luz with a GNR on
May 4’, leaving it for last and addressed ‘#2 – Anonymous letter to the
British police 3 weeks later (she says 2)’.

On the following
post “The Saint of Salem II” we covered interactions ‘#3 – Calls PJ,
date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day
before’ and ‘#4 – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12’.

Today
we will skip ‘#5 – Speaks PJ at PJ, June 13’. It’s meaty, it has to be
dealt with on its own. We will leave that for a later date.

Today
we will be dealing deal with the following interactions: #6 – PJ
“archiving” both her statements and #7 – PJ “unarchiving” them.

After
these are explained we can also tick off the list interaction #8 – PJ
notifying her come to PJ to give a statement, as it has no relevance in
the discovery of the truth because it simply refers to having her go and
give her 3rd statement.

As we said then, interactions #6 and #7
are done without her knowledge or awareness, or even her presence but,
as we will see, are very important to understand this entire sick game.

Statements are not left around.

So
it seems to be an easy fact to understand that between June 13 and Nov
14 the 2 Martin statements were stored somewhere but NOT in any of the
binders of the process that we now call the PJ Files, otherwise we would
find them together with the other documentation appended in June.

Between June and November they had to be archived somewhere else. Where and why?

It’s
easy to understand when one isolates in time these 2 statements, as one
should, and then one can see that what she said about Payne was really of no
interest to the investigation at that point.

On June 12: “Already home
following the case, through the English TV, she saw the same individual
and, this time, the doubt she initially had disappeared, coming to the
conclusion that that face had already passed by her during her
professional activity of protecting minors, failing to discern if as a
suspect/arguido or witness;She clarified that she is able of
doing a photographic recognition of the individual, having highlighted
that with that identified photograph it is possible to access the
English police’s database and clarify there if the same [individual]
has been related with crimes involving minors.”

On June 13: “As
she highlighted previously, this third element of the group is familiar
to her, she thinks he has passed by her, during the performance of her
duties as an arguido/suspect or as a witness.”

That’s it.

The
P-word is never mentioned and all is just a load of beating about the
bush, pointing a very undefined, hazy and doubtful finger at Payne.

In
fact, all she does is to suggest to the PJ that they go and search the
English police database of crimes against minors to see if a man she
can’t be minimally precise about, is in it.

She tries accusing
Payne in a way the Portuguese would call “discreetly, as if not wanting
the thing” but ended up being far too discreet, so much so that no one
gets to notice the accusation she tried to make.

However, this
suggestion could have triggered the Portuguese police to go and request information on Payne if he didn’t happen to be, well, Payne.

David Payne is the only man of the group to have an iron-clad solid alibi during the time Maddie is said to have been abducted.

PJ has been told the last time Payne saw Maddie was on 18:30 of May 3 and this has been confirmed by the girl’s mother.

The
only possibility for him to have been involved in Maddie’s disappearance,
would be in that short period of time when the McCanns and others
members of the group waited at Tapas for the Payne group to arrive for
dinner.

But after that, Gerry McCann says he saw Maddie in her
bed. No way could Payne be involved in Maddie’s disappearance between
21:15 and 22:00.

Together with Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster,
David Payne is someone who allegedly never leaves the table before
Kate’s alarm is given. So confirmed their friends.

For the PJ, what Yvonne
Martin is doing is pointing her doubt-filled to the brim finger at the
last person they have reason to suspect as all his movements that
night, and those of his family, are totally accounted for.

The only
interest paedophilia had at that time to the investigation was in terms
of a possible abduction within a child trafficking crime.

Not for a minute was it ever considered, then, that Maddie could have been a victim of such a crime in situ.

But
even if she were, it certainly couldn’t have been in the hands of a man
who had been seen sitting at a table during the time the crime would
have taken place.

What Martin has said in both her statements about Payne is naturally considered of no interest to the investigation.

A legal process in Portugal includes only relevant documents.

Not
all collated documents or diligences made are appended to the process.
This is for the simple reason that only relevant information collated by
the investigation is presented to the public prosecutor for decision.

No
unnecessary clutter to waste the decider’s time. Each page that
constitutes the process has to have been considered of interest, even if
minimal, to the conclusions to which the investigation came.

It’s easy to determine what is relevant and to be included, the McCann statements being an obvious example.

The difficulty arises in differentiating what is minimally relevant and included from what is useless and not.

To be safe, it’s usual to use the Portuguese rule of “for the yes, for the no, the best is” to include, when deciding that.

Martin’s
statements were considered so useless they didn’t even get past that.
PJ had so many other avenues to work on other than one about a man with a
solid alibi.

They considered Yvonne Martin at that point in time
either an overzealous citizen at best or just another crackpot at
worst, so neither statement was considered to have minimal relevance to
the case.

But what is useless today may be of interest tomorrow, so evidently is not thrown away. It’s archived.

Where? In what some call the Unpublished PJ Files and we call it the Maddie – Useless Stuff Files.

On
June 13, or shortly thereafter, both of Martin’s statements were
considered not having any kind of importance and were archived in the
Maddie – Useless Stuff Files.

We are certain there is a load of
unpublished documents pertaining to the Maddie case. But unlike some may
think, is not filled with top-secret and explosive stuff but just with
what PJ considered without any importance whatsoever after it came to
its conclusions and presented the process to the public ministry for
decision.

The proof such a file exists is that Martin statements are unearthed exactly 5 months after they were archived.

4. Gaspars enter the process

The
Gaspar statements help shed a light about the initial question we have
put in this post: when exactly did PJ become interested in the paedo
lead?

They help shed light about it but don’t answer it. They are the reason the question is asked but they are not the answer.

Chronologically they precede the Yvonne Martin’s ones in terms of inclusion in the process.

This is very important to determine what or who initiated the interest the PJ in the paedo lead.

The
2 Yvonne Martin statements on their own, as we have shown meant nothing
to the PJ. But when looked at together with the Gaspar statements they
gain a whole new meaning, especially the “crime against minors” bit.

Only after the Gaspar statements having arrived could that analysis happen.

That’s
the reason why the Martin ones are appended after the Gaspar ones.
Someone remembered a social worker who had said something about Payne
and went to the Maddie – Useless Stuff file and retrieved it. With the
Gaspar statements, the Martin statements certainly become of interest to
the investigation, without them they do not.

So, it’s easy to
understand that the interest the investigation has in the paedophile
lead comes with the Gaspars and not from Yvonne Martin. The order in the
appending of the respective statements tell us that quite clearly.

But the question that is now unanswered is when did PJ take notice of the Gaspars and their statement?

The
answer to this question would answer the question of when did PJ become
interested in the paedo lead which continues to be answered.

Mr Amaral speaks twice about how the Gaspars enter the process.

First it’s in the Chapter 9 – Majorca, September 2005, pgs 120,121.

With
all due respect to the effort made to the translation we have found on
the internet, we found that some important details were missing from it.
This is our translation:

“What above is written was relayed on
May 16, 2007, only thirteen days after Madeleine’s disappearance to the
English police, by the S.G. and K.G. couple. It was important and
pertinent information for the investigation. However nothing was
transmitted to the Portuguese police. In the middle of July, rumours
began to circle, among the team of investigators, which something
similar would have happened, not being known, at the time, details and
identity of the participants. These rumours pointed to an eventual
identical situation that would have taken place in Greece, during a
holiday trip. However, we had no knowledge of any testimonial proof in
that sense. Clarifications to the English police were asked, but nothing
was confirmed at the time. I think that only after my departure from
the investigation, perhaps at the end of October 2007, it is when the
statement from K.G. would have been sent to the Portuguese police. With
legitimacy one asks: what is the reason for the English police would
have, as all indicates, hidden that statement for six months? When they
knew that David Payne organiser of the trip to Majorca, and of whom were
signalled abnormal behaviours in the relationship with children, was
the same who organised the trip to Portugal, in which the holiday group
of village of Luz was part and in which Madeleine was included, who was
the first family friend to be seen by Kate McCann’s side after the
child’s disappearance (as later will be seen) and on the date of the
statement was still in Portugal, could be confronted with these
statements? There can be no doubt that the Portuguese investigators
could have moved forward with the investigation, in a quicker way,
having knowledge of the eventual facts of Majorca, if they had knowledge
of them in useful time. These statements with reference to the Majorca
trip, seem to indicate a bizarre behaviour worthy of a profound
investigation. Are we before a pertinent profile? Could this profile be
related to what happened on the night of May 3? The credibility of the
S.G. and K.G. statements cannot be easily put in question, as both are
doctors and of the same circle of acquaintances – as the members of the
Vila da Luz group, who are English doctors and know each other well.”

From this we get to know that it is GA who first hears “rumours” about the Gaspar statement in the middle of July.

This initial information lacks the particulars (the holidays with the Gaspars is even supposed to have taken place in Greece instead of Majorca) and he asks UK for information/clarification and
gets none.

Unfortunately, there is nothing of this in the PJ Files, so
trusting his words, which we do, this documentation is now archived in
the Maddie – Useless Stuff Files.

This shows that then the PJ
pursued this lead, once it had knowledge of it, with little or no
conviction otherwise we would now be able to see this paperwork in the
files and we don’t.

Before anyone thinks we’re criticising the
Portuguese investigation let us say very clearly that we not only
understand it but would do the exact same thing if in the same position.
This lead pointed to a man with a solid alibi and all the sordid
details referred to in the Katherine Gaspar’s statement were not known.

Please
note that GA interlinks the Yvonne Martin statements with the Gaspar
ones – the bit in parenthesis – in the exact same way we do: it’s Martin
who complements the Gaspars and not the other way around.

The second time GA speaks about this is during the Porto Canal TV show, which we transcribed in our post “Political Courage”:

“Luís
Filipe Meneses: Is it true ... is it true that one of the elements of
the group two years before had been denounced by another companion?Gonçalo Amaral: Exactly!LFM: Of having behaviours near those that could indicate...GA: ... that is important ....LFM: .... some extravagant behaviour from the point of view of his tendency to be a paedophile?GA:
It's true ... there is a mystery figure who may even have to do so with
the departure of Clarence Mitchell from the British Government to go
support the couple. It can be said it is a conspiracy theory but it is
not.There is also a British couple, also doctors, who two years
earlier went holidaying with the McCann couple and their children, with
Madeleine and with other medical couples, being among them a man who is
David Payne.This David Payne is the last witness, is the witness
that on May 3 says he went there to the apartment and that he saw those
little children and that they looked heavenly angels, were all very
nicely washed, very white, something out of Heaven and is the person who
bathed in the holidays, in these holidays he organized, that bathed the
girls of 2, 3 years, not only his daughters, his children, but the
children of the others.And it is these circumstances of bathing
the children of the others and in comments he makes in a vacation period
in which he speaks of, and according to the statements of Dr Katherine
Gaspar, who is the name of the person who denounces, statements that are
in process that say…LFM: …denounces extravagant behaviour of the gentleman.GA:
Yes, and this is something that, if we have time, we'll try to explain.
She says ... what she says is that he made a gesture and asked
questions to Gerald McCann about Madeleine McCann in front of Madeleine
McCann herself, who at the time was 2 years old...LFM: In the investigation, it was never explored the possibility of this man being a paedophile?GA:
Exactly! The question is this: it’s that these statements came to
Portugal after I left the investigation, on the 2... I left on 2 October
and they arrived months later.They are the statements of Dr
Katherine Gaspar and of her husband to the British Police on May 16,
2007, 15 days after the disappearance, statements that the Portuguese
police were not informed of and arrive in Portugal via... by mail, no,
by fax, under other papers, and these statements came apart [Portuguese: e que vêm soltas essas declarações] and what someone from the British
Police does is, here are these statements and now you investigate, [you, PJ] question.And no one from the Portuguese Police, who replaced me, who came next, has yet questioned, nor SY.No
one questions, no one investigates what is going on there. Dr Katherine
Gaspar, who denounced David Payne to the British police, was never
heard in the Portuguese process and was never included in the rogatory
letter which was issued by the Portuguese authorities. This is the
truth, and we’re going on with debates, with burglaries...Júlio Magalhães: …Goncalo Amaral ...GA: ...and things that are in the process are not investigated.JM:
All this makes one think, and just to finish, that it will never be
solved... it will never be... it’s a case that will stay in history
without being solved?GA: I think it will be solved, it will be
solved ... and there we come back to politics, when there will political
will on both sides.”

In the book we get an idea as to when the PJ got first hears rumours about Majorca and in this interview we get to know how it the Gaspar statement arrives and is appended to the process:

“in Portugal via .... by mail, no, by fax, under other
papers, and these statements came apart [e que vêm soltas essas
declarações] and what someone from the British Police does is, here are
these statements and now you investigate, [you, PJ] question.”

According to GA, the Gaspar statements arrive by fax, under some random papers.

The
way he describes how these statements arrive, it’s hard to understand
whether he thinks the statements were sent by accident – because they
came underneath other papers – or that he finds the English police were
somewhat arrogant and nonchalant about the statements – here they are,
now you work on them.

It has to be one or the other and we’re
inclined to think that he thinks the latter. The former, however – that
the Gaspar statements arrived by accident, sent by mistake by the UK to
Portugal, is what many – we would say everyone except us – believes
happened.

Mr Amaral is incorrect on one thing and that is the
Gaspar statements arrived “under some other papers”. They didn’t. They
arrived with the papers they were supposed to have arrived with and in
the order they were expected to arrive.

What tells us that? The PJ Files.

These are the documents related to the Gaspar statements as they were appended in the files:

What happens is that the first 2 pages (pgs 3909 and 3910) have been wrongly named.

It’s not a cover-letter but just a letter:

It’s a letter in which the UK responds to various requests made by the PJ: questions
for David and Fiona Payne to answer and the Gaspar statements. It’s a letter with 2 annexes, a 2 page main body and annexed the statement of
Arul and the statement of Katherina Gaspar.

To
call it a cover-letter re: Gaspar statements would be to imply that the
sole purpose of the document would be for that reason and that is
incorrect.

Only 1 phrase, the opening one, is dedicated to the Gaspars, all the rest has to do with the Paynes.

But it
is that opening line that tells us a lot. We would say it contains 2
very important words the most important ones of the process outside the
conclusions of the interim report and John Lowe’s admittance that stain
3A was from Maddie.

This is what it says: “Annexed, follow the statements by Arul and Katherina Gaspar, as requested”.

We
will even put this phrase in its original Portuguese so that nothing
gets lost in translation: “Em anexo, seguem os depoimentos da Arul e
Katherina Gaspar, tal como solicitado”.

The 2 very important words: “as requested”.

“As
requested” immediately rule out an accidental sending of the
statements. The Gaspar statements were specifically requested and in
response were specifically sent.

“As requested” also means that
on the UK side of things, quite a few people were involved. The request
was received, the request was analysed and the sending of the statements
approved, the statements were retrieved from where they were,
supposedly, since May 16 and lastly each page was fed into a fax machine
and no one introduces by accident 10 pages into a fax machine.

This
also tells us the statements did not arrive “under other papers”. They
arrived after the document to which they were annexed. Nothing
accidental, all intentional and most importantly, nothing strange about
it as would be strange if it wasn’t so.

The “as requested” put
together with the questionnaire that was sent for David and Fiona to
respond to, shows us clearly there was a significant increase in what
the PJ knew about the Majorca holiday.

In July they only knew of
rumours which they, according to GA, tried to clarify without success.
Then they didn’t know the identity of participants nor any detail.
Between then and October, they know the specifics about who gave the
statements and that Payne was at the centre of them. Why else are the
Paynes brought back into the spotlight out of nowhere, if not because of
that?

The “as requested” shows that PJ has the knowledge that
both Katherina had Arul Gaspar have given statements. It is not a quest
wondering in what way they could help the investigation. It is adamant:
SY send us the statements from the 2 Gaspars, please, the ones we know
you have, thanks.

The reason why there was this sudden increase
in knowledge about these statements and when it happened would answer
our initial question: when did paedophilia become a lead of interest to
the PJ?

Not in June because the Yvonne Martin statements were set
aside, not in July because then there were only vague rumours and it
wasn’t being pursued with conviction and nowhere is it reflected in the
process any sort of frustration about the lack of responses to the
questions about it.

An example of such frustration is shown in
the undated document (pgs 3578 to 3583) signed by Mr Rebelo but appended
to the process in November (we have estimated this by taking into
account that a preceding appended document referring to the delivery of
pyjamas to FSS Birmingham (pg 3490) is dated 29 November 2007).

It’s
evident that all forensic samples were sent to the UK during the month
of August (allowing for the September report to be written) but Mr
Rebelo, who took over the process after October 2, to write up this
document listing the samples that were sent and writing up queries he
would like to see some answers to. Basically a document saying hey UK,
we sent you this a long time ago, where are the answers?

He would only get the reply to some, and in the way we all know, in the FSS final report, a shameful thing.

And
as we have talked about the pyjamas, on Nov 28, FSS was asked by the PJ
for a comparison between the fibres of the pyjamas and those collected
from the Renault Scenic. As far as we know, this never received a
response.

Mr Rebelo was clearly really frustrated about the
absence of answers on forensics from the UK. No such similar frustration
is shown about an eventual absence of answers concerning the Majorca
holiday.

Very clearly, the “as requested” shows that between
mid-July and Oct 24, someone, somewhere updated the PJ all about the
Gaspars, now certainly with identities and most probably with details.

To
the question when did paedophilia become a lead of interest to the PJ
investigation the answer is whenever the PJ was updated on the Majorca
holiday by whoever did it between mid-July 2007 and Oct 24 that same
year.

The moment someone convinced the PJ to ask the UK for the Gaspar statements specifically.

5. Good cops, bad cops and cops who aren’t stupid

From
this point on in this post, we ask readers to forget temporarily all
about swinging and to make the effort to assume that the big secret that
is being hidden is indeed that Maddie died at the hands of a paedo,
presumably David Payne.

To fully comprehend all we have said
above, we must continue under that and only that scenario: paedophilia
is at the heart of the Maddie case.

The first reaction one would
say the reason why the PJ got to know first as rumours and then with the
specifics about the Gaspars and their statements would be for the
source to have been a Brit cop with a conscience who snitched

The fact that GA never mentions who snitched could be because he’s protecting the source.

But
the same source who whispered the rumours into GA’s ears cannot not be
the same as the one who really enlightens the PJ about the Gaspars.

Why?
Because of the McCann hasty departure (with a quick pit-stop at friend
Freud’s place for a nightcap) from Portugal once they were made
arguidos.

We have said that this enlightenment happened between
mid-July and Oct 24, but we’re certain it happened nearer to the latter
than to the former. We are certain the PJ didn’t hold on to this
information once it had knowledge of it.

It’s a known fact that
once the McCanns flew out of Portugal, Britain fascinatingly lost
interest in the investigation in Portugal and all their cops flew home
with them or soon after.

It was as if it was the McCann presence in Portugal that determined their presence in that country. Yes, we all know it was.

But
what matters is that the eventual good cop who snitched in mid-July
couldn’t be the same cop who would snitch in October. Or if he was, in
July he was in Portugal and in October was in England, so communicated
by easily surveyed means: phone or mail.

It’s irrelevant whether
it was one or two good cops with a conscience. What matters is that on
either occasion someone with knowledge of the Gaspars contacted the PJ
to enlighten them about it. We shall call this source the Brit Snitch.

From Mr Amaral we get to know that the Brit Snitch first rats about the Gaspars in mid-July.

We
think that Mr Amaral was, and maybe still is, under a wrong assumption
that there were good Brit cops willing to help their fellow Portuguese
colleagues.

An absolutely wrong assumption because when it comes
to the Maddie case, there were and there are no good Brit cops. Not a
single one.

Because the all the good ones, and we are certain there were (and are) many, many good cops in Britain, were and are not stupid.

Two
good cops come to mind, Mark Harrison and Martin Grime. Indeed, we have
nothing to point against them and they did their job very well and
truth owes a LOT to both. But one mustn’t forget that they worked under
favourable conditions, in July and August when the McCanns were free
game.

Once the game hunting season was closed in September, silence reigned in every trench of the police front.

When
it came to the Maddie case, the good cops either saw themselves forced
to turn “bad” (as in compliant and in obeying orders) or just became
silent doing their best to not get involved.

We repeat that we are speaking exclusively about the Maddie case.

This,
we picked up recently from Twitter helps us understand the pressure and
risk anyone who thought of stepping over the line was under.

We
believe this was reported early on by a paper. It was about one of the
T9 wanting to break rank and speak out. We are not certain this ever
happened and we’re not saying it did (nor saying it didn’t). What we’re
saying is that what is said was absolutely true about the consequences
of not toeing the line:

“It’s not that he is scared of the
McCanns but the economic and political lobby surrounding the couple is
truly frightening to anybody. What my client wants is to reveal the
whole truth but he does not mean to accuse or blame anyone, as that is
the job of the police. The only thing he wants is to help the police
discover the truth about what happened before, during and after that
dinner on May 3”

This may not relate to a real event, we don’t know
but what we know is that its content is not only faultless because it
lacks the reference to the legal lobby who contributed significantly to
the terror campaign that infected the country in 2007.

Yes, in 2007 it was truly, truly frightening. Not worth the hassle to make a good cop be good.

Wikipedia
says Top secret is the highest level of classified information. NATO
has come up with a really scary title for its highest level: Cosmic Top
Secret.

Neither pay real justice to the classification that
anything related to Maddie really had in the UK in 2007 (and still has).
If we had to name it would be something like Plague Top Secret: if you
see it, you are immediately infected and if you’re infected you must be
quarantined, and so closely observed and monitored so the infection
would be effectively contained and controlled.

And within the
Plague Top Secret and the secret for the national cover-up being
paedophilia (we are under this scenario, remember?), anything, but
really ANYTHING, directly or indirectly, having to do with it would have
even tighter control than referred to above.

This to say that if
the Gaspars statements were genuine – to say their credibility can’t be
questioned because they’re doctors, then one cannot question whatever a
certain 6 others doctors have said and we all know to be baloney – and
IF paedo is the secret, anyone leaking that information to the PJ would
be very quickly and easily spotted and made to face a very grim future.

There
were no good cops working in the Maddie case, not because Brits cops
are bad but because we most certainly do not take them to be stupid.

How
many Brit cops in Portugal would know about the Gaspars and the content
of their statements if paedo was the big secret that had to be hidden
at all costs?

If genuine and taking into account that paedo was
the humongous secret to be protected, the moment they left the room
after they spoke in England on May 16, alarm bells would have blared all
the way to Downing Street and everyone would be ordered to freeze until
told they could move again. The statements would be sealed in vacuum in
double strengthened plastic bags, put in lead containers and sealed in a
vault with a triple key opening in a dungeon somewhere. And all those
few who were unfortunate to have been exposed to them would be put in a
room and only allowed to leave it when completely indoctrinated.

Yet, it seems, the Brit Snitch in Portugal knew about them in mid-July enough to start the rumours.

And
one can only imagine the desk banging, lamp throwing, collar pulling
fury that certainly invaded every office again, all the way to
Downing Street, when the first query from PJ about the Gaspars, however
vague, arrived in the UK.

A “fire brigade” would have been sent
immediately to the Algarve, to quickly and swiftly find out who the Brit
Snitch was, fly him or her back home under some personal problem excuse,
flog on the deck that person mercilessly, have salt rubbed in the wounds
and tie him or her to a mast under a scorching sun to set a ruthless example for all. The
Brit Snitch and all his or her accomplices in this treacherous acts.

Each
poor soul in the Brit Snitch’s line of command would have to kneel in front of a
parade and show their repentance by begging tearfully before all for a second opportunity to prove their
loyalty.

Treason must be dealt with the greatest of severities.

After that, all measures would be taken to make sure no second query would come from Portugal on THAT subject and to quickly convince the PJ that the Majorca incident never existed.

As we saw, in
mid-July the rumours started by the Brit Snitch said that the Gaspar-Payne-McCann holiday had been in
Greece and not in Majorca, so all was needed to tell the PJ was that those rumours about
Greece were false. That would be true and the story would die there and
then.

And without Brit Snitch anywhere near the Portuguese, it would
never revive. Besides, while being tortured he could inform everyone that he knew that what Yvonne Martin had to say to the PJ held no water and was completely disregarded. No Gaspar statements, no paedophilia in the Maddie case. The big, no, the enormous and national secret would be safe and sound.

Nothing of the sort happened. The Brit Snitch
apparently continued to feed the rumours to the point in October the
statements were being requested specifically and when that happened there were no apoplectic attacks and chest clutching in Leicestershire Constabulary, in CEOP, in Scotland Yard, in
the Home Office, in Whitehall or in Downing Street as would be expected because it would be an embarrassment to all by making it evident how they were unable to control their people and their sensitive information in the crisis.

In fact, what happened was just a here you are, which GA even took as an arrogantly displeased please investigate as we have better things to do.

Very strange if paedophilia was the big secret and it is under that specific scenario that we are speaking.

6. Why?

The question that follows is… why?

Why on earth did – and not could – the UK send this highly sensitive information to Portugal?

Or to be precise, why did the UK send to Portugal this highly sensitive information after months of hiding it?

Without
it, no one but no one would ever link Maddie and paedophilia as
Martin’s statements would be still stored in the middle of the other
useless stuff to this day. And even if unearthed and included in the
file, what she has said in those 2 statements is anything but damning.

Without
the Gaspar statements the paedophilia lead would never have grown legs
to walk, and if all revolves around paedophilia and Payne the paedo
wouldn’t THOSE 2 statements be exactly THE information NOT to send to
Portugal EVER?

Politeness maybe, because Portugal asked?

To
understand the politeness, sense of shame or worry from the UK about
insulting the Portuguese let us just quote the following passage from
GA’s book (pgs 185-186):

“As to the samples from the vehicle’s
boot, it was now concluded, that the 15 components of Madeleine’s DNA
profile had disappeared. That is, were no longer mentioned, it was if
they hadn’t existed. Suddenly it dawns: either the LCN technique wasn’t
credible or then it would be easier to explain Madeleine’s DNA inside
the apartment than in the inside the boot of a vehicle hired 24 days
after her disappearance. Because of our insistence, Stuart contacted the
FSS and asked them if they thought the Portuguese were idiots. At a
certain point in time we heard him say to those present: «with a lot
less I’ve arrested people in England»”

John Lowe, from the FSS,
brazenly backpedalling about Maddie’s DNA in September showed very
clearly that the UK was PROACTIVELY and shamelessly covering up for
paedophilia (remember that we are under that scenario, please) but then
the same UK feeds, in October, Portugal with damning paedophile evidence
just because it asked for it. Why?

And talking about the FSS, let us quote another passage from GA’s book (pg 187):

“Stuart,
once again, consulted the English lab. The hairs had not been yet
analysed. We didn’t just want to determine if the hairs were
Madeleine’s. We mainly wanted to know if it was from a dead or live
person. The FSS wasn’t able to answer the last requirement, only the
first. English colleagues present in the meeting raise the hypothesis of
those hairs be sent to European labs with the capability to answer that
question: hairs from a living or dead person. But the FSS seems not to
open hand of such hairs.”

UK doesn’t overtly release crucial
evidence Portugal knows is in their hands but then releases the
Gaspar statements because Portugal got somehow to know they had them.
Why?

And what about the credit card information? Again let’s quote GA from his book (pg 192):

“This
was relative to the socio-economic situation and in it, strangely, the
English police stated that of the McCann couple no credit or debit cards
were known.- It’s not possible.- They don’t have credit
cards? But there are 2 that are identified: the one used to pay for the
air trips and the one that rented the Renaut Scenic.”

The credit
and debit card information is shamelessly withheld but a statement
incriminating 2 of the Tapas 9 (yes, lest we forget, Katherina Gaspar
also puts Gerry in the paedo hot seat) in paedophilia is sent by fax
upon request. Why?

According to the believers that paedophilia is
the big secret, the UK had no qualms slapping everyone in the face in
emptying out Gerry’s CATS file – we think it’s empty simply because
nothing was ever put in it – but released the Gaspar statements because
they would have a problem of being seen as rude if they withheld them,
plus by releasing them when they did, it exposed how UK had been hiding
them for months. Why?

With the record it had when it came to the
Maddie case we cannot see any reason for the UK to have answered
Portugal’s request on the Gaspars. Yet it did.

UK by sending those statements to Portugal took enormous risks on having, needlessly, the whole paedo can of worms popping open. Yet, it did just that.

Even if it was decided for an answer to be given, The UK had other options

It
could have done like it did with Carole Tranmer-Fenn, who they called
back to “listen” to her again. Like they did with Carole, they could
steer the questions in a way the Gaspars would only answer with what was
the most convenient and send that.

We remind readers that with
Carole Tranmer-Fenn they tried really hard to have her change the e-fit
she had done in her first statement. Because she didn’t the original
e-fit was never sent and neither was her first statement. If these were
never sent, why would the Gaspar statements be?

Also the request
could have received an evasive answer, like was done with the response
given to the questionnaire requiring an answer, in the letter in which
the statements were annexed. Note that Payne doesn’t say anything but is
said to have said. The same could have been done with the Gaspars:
respond with a document saying the Gaspars said this and that, and close
the issue once and for all.

The statements could have been
tampered with and all the sensitive stuff withdrawn or smoothed out. It
wasn’t expected for the files to be published, so no one would know
better.

But even if they got to be published who would know about
this tampering? Outside those who tampered, only the Gaspars evidently.

That
wouldn’t be any problem as we know of a whole bunch of people who have
certainly seen their names being tampered with in the booking sheets and
no one has lifted a finger about it, so why would the Gaspars? They
would just be another 2 in silence.

We are certain there would be
many other ways to elude the Portuguese about the Gaspars if their
statements were really that sensitive, and in a paedophile scenario they
certainly would be.

Instead, they send it to the Portuguese.
They get to know the Portuguese know about it and don’t act upon it.
Then they let the Portuguese request it and do nothing. They only do
something when they receive the request: they go look for the statements
and send them with a dry here they are, go on, we dare you to investigate them.

7. Conclusion

Aren’t
the Gaspar statements like a bowling ball thrown in a packed crystal
shop shattering all in its path but everyone seems only to be worried
about catching it so they can hold it up as prize to be put over a
mantelpiece and no one stops for a moment to ask how in heavens was it
rolling in that shop in the first place?

When the hand-out is too much even the poor is suspicious, so say the Portuguese.

And if one desires to start a wildfire, nothing best to light up a paedophile match. Its flames spread very, very fast.

A bowling ball in a crystal shop causes havoc and havoc is one spectacular, attention grabbing distraction.

Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth@LoveTextusa This is the site that contained those keywords: http://web.archive.org/web/20051229122332/http://www.jacinto-murat.pt/ … Unusual marketing technique, to say the least! #McCann

LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa@K9Truth Thanks, I will alert the sisters to your Tweets, they don't do twitter. #mccann

Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth@LoveTextusa Thanks, but they appear to be well aware of what is written on Twitter ;) #McCann

LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa@K9Truth You could ask via their blog if you wish, just a thought. #mccann

Canine Truth – ‏@K9Truth@LoveTextusa Like the sisters, I prefer to stick to only one platform. It's an interesting article, but IMO not convincing. #McCann04:07 - 30 de set de 2016

1. The site to which K9 refers to is a business, Jacinto&Murat, established in 1972, by João Jacinto and John Murat, Robert’s father. John Murat stopped being a partner of it in 1977, 39 years ago.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_JACINTO.htm

We think this business we think still exists:http://www.directorio.iol.pt/jacinto-murat-lda--206765.htm

It has nothing to do with Robert Murat, so we don’t know why it is even being brought up and suggesting a link between it and paedophilia is not exactly doing it a favour.

But we will go one up on K9 and say that paedo keywords were indeed searched by the PJ, in the computers seized from Murat and Malinka, before the Gaspar statements were appended to the files.

We spoke of this in our post of April 4, 2014 “Why Swing”:http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/why-swing.html

“On reading them [keywords searched], one immediately understands why all of them are keywords related to the case. All with the exception of 2: “Sophie” and “swing”.In fact we can separate the keywords into 3 major groups:To do with Maddie: “eiddam”, “Mad”, “Madd”, “Maddie”, “Maddy”, “Madel(ale)ine”, “Madelaine”, and “Madeleine”.To do with Murat: “Malinka”, “Murat”, “Robert”, “Robert Murat”, “Serg(ily)”, “Sergei” and “Sergey”.To do with paedophilia: “encomenda”, “kid”, “lolita”, “pack”, “package”, “pacote” and “pedo”.About paedophilia we also noted that all computers were checked for “sexual abuse on minors” having been cleared of that.Two computers returned the word “lolita”: computer “705” related to computer software and computer “987” related to porn sites with “lolita” in their names having been visited.”

We have not forgotten about this in our post. We have mentioned it when we said:

“The only interest paedophilia had at that time to the investigation was in terms of a possible abduction within a child trafficking crime.Not for a minute was it ever considered, then, that Maddie could have been a victim of such a crime in situ.”

The hypothesis of Maddie having been abducted by a paedo ring was public and obvious. If the PJ had then reason to make Robert Murat an arguido, in an investigation about this kind of crime, it is expected for those paedo related keywords to have been searched in the seized computers.

All computers seized were cleared. That is said very clearly.

The paedophilia this post speaks about is not about an eventual paedo ring but of a paedophile crime that warranted a national cover-up. About that, nothing is mentioned in files, directly or indirectly, before the Gaspar statements were appended.

2. There is nothing to say that the Greek holiday is mentioned retrospectively. It is mentioned very clearly within the context of the Majorca holiday. Chapter 9, from where we quoted him, is called exactly that: Majorca September 2005. There can be no doubt Mr Amaral is speaking about this holiday.

What we think happened is that when these rumours began, the only holiday that was known (because the T9 mention it in their statements) was the one in Greece. So, then, in mid-July, a ref to something happening in a previous holiday that the group went together, it would be natural to think it was the Greek one, the only one known.

3. About the picture known as the make-up picture we don’t wish to speak much about it for reasons we prefer not to reveal. Readers will just have to trust us ion this one when we say it has nothing to do with paedophilia.

If it did, we ask the same question we have asked about the Gaspars statements: if paedophilia is the national secret to be protected at all costs, then why would it ever be released?

The way we see it, whoever dared to do it (we are talking about a NATIONAL secret) would be very quickly identified and face the same fate of the Brit Snitch, one REALLY very, very unpleasant near, mid and long future.

Besides, it seems Twitter K9Truth agrees fully with us:

LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa@K9Truth Comments made here are now posted to their blog. I am sure you will receive a reply asap. #mccann

Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth @LoveTextusa I see. They are correct to Q the circumstances behind how + why the Gaspar Statements were eventually sent to the PJ. #McCann

Anyone in their right mind [when it comes to this complex case] would indeed keep a very open mind. Nothing has been proved, nothing has been set in stone. As it stands, the paedophilia is an option, make of it what you will but it has been thrown into the mix, just like the 'neglect' theory.Without qualified proof of all occuring [or not], there's no reason to debunk it. Picking up on Goncalo Amaral saying the Gaspar statements arrived 'underneath' other papers is perhaps a trifle trivial. The last thing on his mind would be page order, he was incensed on why it took so long for the statements to reach the Portuguese police, I don't believe that would have been his first thought of importance given the circumstances.That said, you do some neat investigative work, but when it comes to trying to debunk some relevant points we think it should be best left to the experts.

No it wouldn't be the last thing, agree. It would be a permanent thing on his mind. And that of his subordinates.

It's a question of working methodology. Like punching the holes on the left side of the page. After a while it becomes a second nature. Otherwise it's a chaos of papers. The investigation moves forward as the documents are appropriately archived, or get appended to the binders.

It's naturally chronological. It's not the objective of being chronological. The objective is to keep things organised and easily found when needed.

Only you know what the definition of expert is to you.

The rest, is your opinion which we must respect even if we don't agree.

Opinion is subjective, very hard to debate. Unlike fact, that is quite objective.

Hi Textusa,congratulations on another excellent post,in regard to doctor David Payne and the Madeleine McCann disappearance,Mr Payne was at odds in his "Mind"about how he had phoned a specific Telephone Number to the UK for reassurance on what was worrying for him at that present moment in time?Was it Dr Payne,who wished to speak"Openly" in 2007? Yet in 2008 when giving a Police statement to DCI 1485 Mesina April 2008,"something that was relevant and Pertinent to the Investigation"but the Police station in the UK wasn't the right time,DCI 1485 Mesina reply,Ok end of Interview?

About that phone call, we refer you back to the crux of the post which was why on earth were the Gaspar statements sent to Portugal, if that call was really damning (and under the paedophilia scenario) would the information about it ever have left the UK?

McCanns really scraping the barrel in Daily Mail this time:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3817801/Sick-tour-based-Madeleine-McCann-s-disappearance-takes-customers-apartment-seen-tapas-bar-parents-ate-tragic-night.html Anonymous ex-pat? I think the locals might recognise him and name him!

For us, it’s profoundly wrong to put paedophilia and swinging in the same category (we have, unfortunately seen this equivalence being made elsewhere as we pointed out in a previous post.

In fact we think one rules the other out.

The comparison between both would be the same as comparing baby seal killing with Mount Everest climbing. Both are outdoor activities and similarities end there. The gratifications drawn from either have nothing to do with each other.

Could a mountain climber be a baby seal killer? There’s nothing to rule that out, but one thing is certain, if one person happened to be both, when s/he was killing baby seals, s/he wouldn’t be climbing a mountain and vice-versa.Paedophilia is all about dominance and sadism. The victim’s suffering is essential to be present for the perpetrator. And please remember that we would be talking about an infant rapist, a nepiophile.

Swinging is all about consent. To understand how important that it is, when one shows interest in another, the reciprocity must exist, explicitly. To put it in simple terms, one shows interest, other welcomes it and reciprocates and both proceed or in case one shows interest and there’s no reciprocation, one just moves along. To insist in any way is very much frowned upon and can even mean being invited to leave.

Another significant difference is gender. “Collective” paedophilia, the one which the sadist(s) enjoys to exhibit the victim’s suffering before others, is perpetrated and watched mainly, almost exclusively, by the male gender.

In Swinging, there’s a balance between the numbers of participants from both genders, which seems to be the case in Luz at the time.

Also the victims of “collective” paedophilia are not related in any way with the perpetrators. They are usually poor children, whose absence won’t be noted and cannot be traced back to the criminals.

The paedophile victims of family members suffer their terrible fate in a private manner. These criminals never publicise their actions.

For the secret of Luz to be paedophilia, we would be talking of “collective” paedophilia against their own children. Note the plural, as we cannot see any reason, within that scenario, for Maddie to have been singled out, to have been the only victim.

Lastly, and most important is the legal aspect.

Swinging is subject of social shaming but there are no legal implications.

Paedophilia brings also social shaming but it’s a crime. If not the most heinous one committed by a human being.

Swinging is a peccadillo, paedophilia a horrible crime.

Answering your question very directly, yes, we think that if the crime had been paedophilic there would not be any cover-up. Because there wouldn’t be the amount of people we see have witnessed being involved.

One thing is to protect a “white lie” to cover-up a peccadillo, the swinging, which can be understood if one thinks the loss of life in question was accidental and the child’s parents were fine with lying as well, another, completely different, is to lie to cover-up for a 3 yr old having been raped and murdered even if her parents were alright with that lying.

"Also, if paedophilia was used as a red herring, why was Payne targeted? Why point so close to the truth?"

If paedophilia red herring, then targeting Payne wouldn't be anywhere close to the truth.

The T9 are not liked by anyone.

Not by us because we want the truth out and we know they're lying. Not by their "friends" because it was because of them, T9, that everyone is in the pickle they are. The accidental death happened, in our opinion, within the T9.

If we don't like them, the other side even likes them less.

It's not everyone doing the T9 favours but the T9 being forced to do the favour of playing the main acting of the absurdity which is the abduction scam.

Pointing to Payne, punishes him, sets an example to others and provides a very addictive distraction.

Anon 3 Oct 2016, 00:20:00 has placed the response to our comment as a reply to another comment. We have taken the liberty to copy and paste his/her comment and placing it here where it belongs:

"Anonymous3 Oct 2016, 17:28:00

Thank you for your answers.

Please note that I am not, in any way, putting swinging and paedophilia in the same category, just considering the possibility that someone in that group could have engaged in both activities. Arthur Rimbaud was both a great poet and a weapons dealer, two qualities that obviously do not fall in the same category.

One strong argument against paedophilia in the Maddie case is that it suggests a murder (involving premeditation), which we certainly agree is implausible. However, I am wondering about the reasons we have to rule out paedophilia without the intention to kill.

Regarding "the amount of people we see have witnessed being involved", how many of them knew the exact circumstances in which Madeleine McCann died? Many probably understood that it was a violent death: that did not prevent them from taking part in the cover-up. By doing so, they not only covered up a peccadillo, they also protected manslaughter against a child and obstructed justice at different degrees.

That said, I am fully convinced by the main message of your post: that paedophilia was not the big secret to protect. And, frankly, I lean towards your interpretation that the Gaspard statement was a red herring. But I can imagine that the fear of being associated with paedophilia, be it real or not, was among the initial motivations for the cover-up."

I may be wrong Textusa (apologies if so) but it seems to me that some of those who do not agree with your theory have not understood that a feature of your theory s that the 'other side' wish the finger to be pointed at the T9 and that the T9 are the focus of all attention. That is what they want.

Last night CMTV in Portugal aired a short piece on the Maddie “Ghoul Tours”. To show the blog in question, CMTV showed an image of one of its posts about the subject.

In the image, it can be seen the word “Textusa” isolated above the text of the post and that it is one of the posts from that blog that are tagged “Textusa”.

We are in no way related to that blog, we would like to make that clear. We have no control or opinion about where and how our name is used to tag posts.

However, the blog is getting free publicity and a good one as it seems that these tours were a reaction from said blogger in response to our post “Praia da Luz”: http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/10/praia-da-luz.html

Apparently, so we have been told, he has only written 9 posts on the subject.https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/madeleine-foot-luz-1/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/madeleine-essence-of-luz/ https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/shininginluz-coming-attractions/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/madeleine-the-mccanns-did-it-luz-tour-2/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/madeleine-og-tour-march-2016/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/madeleine-luz-tour-1-part-1/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/madeleine-luz-tour-1-part-2/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/madeleine-luz-tour-3/https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/madeleine-luz-tour-4/

3 June 2008PJ Brought Back to Portugal 3 of the McCanns Friends in Secrecy

WITNESSES CAME TO THE ALGARVE TO REINFORCE TESTIMONY THAT CONTRADICTS THE MCCANNS

Friends are the PJ trumps

In a secret visit to Portugal, three persons who had dinner at the Tapas Bar shattered the McCanns and Jane Tanner versions

Fiona Payne, her mother Dianne Webster, and the husband David Payne. Are the main trumps of the Public Ministry that will lead the parents of Madeleine McCann, the missing girl, on the 3rd of May of 2007, from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Algarve, to be accused of the crimes of exposition and abandonment since they left the girl alone in that critical night. It is a crime that is punishable up to ten years of prison and allows the respective preventive arrests, like 24horas announced last week.

These three witnesses returned to Portugal, on the 11th of July of 2007, in a travel paid by the Portuguese State, and where accommodated in a hotel unity of Portimão. They were still questioned by Gonçalo Amaral’s team, the superior coordinator who was removed from the case, and they contradicted the McCann’s version regarding to what went on in the night of the disappearance.

Remember that Kate, Gerry and the other two couples with whom they had dinner, assured that they were taking turns in the vigilance to the children. A fact that was contradicted to the authorities in the above-mentioned secret travel by Fiona Payne and that had already been put in question in two previous statements, given on the days that followed to Maddie's disappearance, by her mother and her husband.

Jane Tanner Contradicted

“ Fiona Payne gave three statements to the authorities, as well as Matthew Oldfield and his companion, Rachel. Dianne Webster statement [Fiona's mother] was very solid and there was not need of questioning her again”, revealed to 24horas a judicial person in charge connected with the process. In accordance to the same source, “other persons who had dinner with the McCanns - Jane Tanner, her companion, Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and his wife, Rachel – gave contradictory statements”. And the judicial person in charge exemplifies: "”Jane Tanner always said that she went out from the restaurant to see her oldest daughter. Fiona, David and Dianne guaranteed to the PJ that she never left the restaurant before the alarm was given by Kate. This information was corroborated by several workers of the Tapas Bar restaurant”. These witnesses also stated that Gerry McCann did not even go to check on the children, when he went away of the restaurant, and that he only stayed at the apartment of Praia da Luz entrance.

The only person who stayed in Tapas Bar

Dianne Webster, of 63 years old, mother of Fiona Payne (36 years), was one of three persons who were available to return to Portugal and to help the authorities in the reconstitution of the facts taken place to the 3rd of May of 2007.She was the only one that was quiet and calm when Kate McCann entered in the Tapas Bar shouting “they’ve taken her!”. The authorities were suspicious of her attitude and she told them that she did not believe in the version of the McCanns. She also pointed out to the PJ that each couple was responsible for their own children and that no one entered in the apartment of the friends[in each other’s apartments].

FactsSECRET. The McCann organized a "secret" dinner with all the friends with whom they had dinner with at the Tapas, in the Praia da Luz, Algarve, before the rogatory letters sent for England were carried out.

ACCUSATION. The accusation to the McCanns is almost concluded and it should be known before of the 14 of July, the end date for the extended term to incriminate or not the British couple. The judicial authorities are still considering if they will not constitute more arguidos, since the McCann were not the only ones leaving their children alone.

T3 who returned on July 11 came for the confrontation meeting with Murat.There is nothing in PJ files about formally asking to change their statements(although analysis of statements made originally and later reveal contradictions and changes).

According to K's book, Silvia Batista was also due to attend, but did not do so.

We would like to make it clear that we have never said that the T9 “change-the-mind” meeting ever took place. The point we were making by using its example was to exemplify the very palpable terror campaign against truth about Maddie launched by the entire UK (as in its government, its media, its authorities and legal system).

Indeed the PJ Files do not reflect such a meeting ever taking place or even being arranged but that doesn’t mean that there was such an intention about which the participants could have been “convinced” to change their minds about changing their minds and did not even establish any sort of contact with the PJ.

This, obviously, is speculation. What is not speculation is the terror set around anything related to Maddie at the time and following years.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id18.htmlScroll down for article which refers to a man from T7 under pressure.Lawyer London based.Matt Oldfield lived in London at the time.I think this article at the very end shows pressure being applied to T7.

The Gaspar statements were for meany reasons sensitive matter. Why then weren't they suppressed along with all sensitive documents (as the TP7 rogs) ?"As requested" supposes, yes, that Ricardo Paiva had heard of them before, but the request itself isn't in the files. As well the David and Fiona Payne's written answers to LC or PJ questions, though they so strangely differ from their unique 4th of May statements (btw why only one statement ?), didn't motive a request of clarification by RP. Funny.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Total Pageviews

As of Jan 19 2019 we're waiting for Jules to own the blog.

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCanndied in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday (which we believe took place in various locations in and around Praia da Luz - from Lagos to Sagres) in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence"that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

PJ Files

Anonymity

A MAJOR MINORITY

TRUTH is Self-Sustained

Think for yourself

Luz - THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.Anonymous 11Nov 2013 12:22:00

Maybe because you can always enjoy an ice-cream in the rain?And a dip in an icy pool on arrival always attracts a crowd.Textusa 11Nov 2013 12:28:00

I like the Tapas fragile chairs and tables. They wobble nicely when cutting thick grilled steaks spilling the drinks all about! It's fun for the whole family!Anonymous 11Nov 2013 13:08:00

And how about the number of men seen carrying little blond girls in the street in the middle of the night?Anonymous 11Nov 2013 14:04:00

PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.Anonymous 12 Nov 2013 12:37:00

Child Catcher

Algarve - THE REGION OF THE DAMNED

“Algarve – Where Chitty Chitty Bang Bang’s Child Catcher found it ideal to roam the streets with his GYPSY-wagon:“There are children here somewhere. I can smell them. Come along, kiddie-winkies!”Algarve, the REGION OF THE DAMNED.”

Please Reconstruct I:

PJ's Declaration for Reopening Process:

"Madeleine McCann

As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. "

The Anne Guedes Transcriptions

Permanent Suggested Reading

Quote

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Mark Twain

Revelations

"For the righteous, a revelation is a joyous event, the realization of a divine truth but for the wicked, revelations can be far more terrifying, when dark secrets are exposed and sinners are punished for their trespasses." Quote from the TV Series "Revenge" (T2 - Ep9)

Truth

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.Winston Churchill

The Revolution

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.George Orwell

The Revolution Goes Viral

"Once information networks become social, the implications are massive: truth can now travel faster than lies, and all propaganda becomes instantly flammable. Sure, you can try to insert spin, but the instantly networked consciousness of millions of people will set it right: they act like white blood cells against infection so that ultimately the truth, or something close to it, persists much longer than disinformation"The Guardian (04Jan12)

We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts Winston Churchill

PRECIOUS, SO TRUE, WORDS

“One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.”

Kate McCann

(in MADELEINE, by Kate McCann, published in 2011 by Bantam Press, pg. 328)

Imagine...

"This says it all, Ms Loach hit the nail on the head!

"Ms Loach replied: “Imagine the public believing that you covered up your child’s death and then sought to make money out of it. They feel shame, humiliation and anguish."

Yes, that's exactly what we, the public, believe, because that's exactly what they did! And, their "shame, humiliation and anguish" are because they know we know!"

Comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 16, 2013, 8:36:00 AM on "McCann vs Amaral Libel Trial" post referring to Mockumentary maker Emma Loach's testimony on the 1st day of said trial as one of McCann's defense witness.

Legal Disclaimer

This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and of opinions, between WHITE HATS, so is not responsible for the use, misuse or any form of interpretation (mainly misinterpretation) of its content, as although it uses a public medium, as is the internet, it's of PRIVATE nature, very much like any other conversation that takes place in a restaurant, pub or any other public location, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised.

Sound Explanation for Viciousness

Compliments from the Maggots' Lair:

- “…all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa.”

- “I think she should be on the streets and off the internet"

Chinagirl):

- “Disgusting piece of slime.”

(Raptor):

- “Yikes ! That's disgusting.”

(preciousramotswe):

- “You are right. It's a shambolic mess of vitriol and obtuseness. But then they always are. The one that some claimed finally 'proved' who was carrying who during the Smith sighting is a masterpiece of deliberately confused arguments in which labrynthine plots are used to cover how empty the central thesis is”

Out of the Blue (or... Black?)

Hey textusa How are you? well I hope,just thought I would tell you that there are videos about you on youtube, claiming you are an internet predator who stole her daughters identity and prowls the forums for young boys, they say you are welsh!! I think its a case of mistaken identity because are you not portuguese and male? Anyway great blog. keep it up.(Anon., Nov 13th, 05:43)

Conversation from the "Lightless Zone"

sabot:

“Wot Round Table?”

bonnybraes1:

“He/she/it invented a barking mad 'theory' about no-one actually having eaten in the Tapas, because he/she/it couldn't grasp the table arrangements.”

So, because textusa doesn't understand stuff like that, all the Tapas group, the staff, everyone, were lying.

OMG - you don't suppose textusa is actually Gonc, do you?”

sansouci:“Could be Bonny.

The 'theories' about the table and the watersports are really so far beyond bizarre, that I get the feeling that 'textusa' could actually be 'pisstaka'.”

BLACK BUT TRUE WORDS

“Because no-one is more vicious in their search for payback that those who realise they have allowed themselves to be taken for a fool” (A "boomerang" comment left by an Anonymous (Insane?) at Sep 22, 2012 2:06:00 PM)

Insane's IMPORTANT Comments

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

FOOT IN THE MOUTH DISEASE

Insane (Nov 14, 2012 11:37:00 PM):

Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.

Textusa (Nov 15, 2012 8:50:00 AM):

Well it seems that you're quite privy with the Ocean Club aren't you?

Them giving YOU the information about their own mails?

And you threatening us based on information that YOU apparently got from the Ocean Club.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

Insane (Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM):

One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM

:)

Textusa (Nov 16, 2012 11:17:00 AM):

Thank you for confirming that Mark Warner Staff are supplying YOU with information pertaining the Maddie Affair.

Insane's Moment of Rare Beauty

“It would be more suspicious if every account tallied. Police expect to find contradictions, don't tell me you did not know this?” (Nov 22, 2012 3:38:00 PM), when providing an opinion on contradictions from various statements in the PJ Files.

“I don't give a rat's arse about the statements which tally too closely - of course some of them tally too closely, there is an in depth analysis of them on my blog, the one you are not invited to.” (Nov 22, 2012 4:08:00 PM), when, exactly 30 minutes later, provides an opposite opinion, in this case about the fact that some of Tapas' Staff's statements tally too closely.

Insane the Entrepeneur?

"I'd love to stay, but I have a report to write, and it won't do itself, will it?" (Nov 29, 2012 8:14:00 PM)Insane the Disruptor, a new profession shown inNew Career Opportunities

Insane's Proposal for a New Legal Disclaimer

Textusa's new disclaimer. Please ignore all previous versions

''This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and opinions between people who have sniffed WAY too many solvents, and the imaginary people who live at the bottom of their garden, and so is not responsible for the enormous fines, possible imprisonment, or lifelong incarceration in a mental hospital which may result from it's content, as although it is on the interclickyweb, it is of a private nature, accompanied only by the voices in their heads, very much like any other conversation which takes place in a psychiatric ward between people rocking backwards and forwards in their seat and eating the wallcoverings, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised in the half hour per day of free association which the inmates are allowed.''Comment NOT published but submitted on Aug 22, 2011 10:17:00 PM

Kate's Round Table

INSANE'S BLOG

We waited so long for the link...

A possible explanation for the wait: "As I have made perfectly clear, you and your sort will never have access to my blog. We are particular about who we invite, and would not include screaming harpies and riff-faff like yourself."unpublished comment from Insane at Nov 23, 2012 10:55:00 AM

Then, a glimmer of hope?“Publishing elsewhere the posts Textusa refuses to publish is also appropriate - and also gives you fools a chance to read what she withholds from you, knowing that you would desert her if you were aware of how much trouble she leads you into.” (Nov 29, 2012 12:40:00 PM)

No, it wasn’t to be so… :“For the last time, you will never be provided with a link for my blog - you are not welcome there and will never be given access”(Nov 29, 2012 1:38:00 PM)